On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:19 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2007, 5:51:47 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>
> LH> To summarize the below-linked minutes, our recommended strategy is to get
> LH> 4-week W3C/public review and publish the approved 1.0 errata document, but
> LH> to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0 Third Release
> LH> document (Edited Recommendation).
>
> >Today's minutes:
> >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
>
> I heard that the 'approved errata' option was being removed due to not being used. i have copied Ian Jacobs for an authoritative statement on whether that can still be used or not.
>
>
> Ian, this is a publicly archived list.
The option still exists; we have not yet modified the Process Document.
We plan to propose to the AC to remove that option (as it has not been
used).
I see above "to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0
Third Release document" Please note that the process for approved
corrections does require publication within 6 months. Can the group
confirm here their intention to publish within 6 months after
the end of the formal review period?
_ Ian
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260-9447